It's like a deaf person arguing about how a pair of speakers sound that they saw a picture of in a magazine.

And this is from someone who say's bookshelf speakers are just as good as floorstanders.

And this is from someone who say's [sic] bookshelf speakers are just as good as floorstanders.

...ok, so what's wrong with what he said? This should be good...

If an image has been created in a way to deliberately make it look realistic when played back on an accurate display, what exactly are you going to do to that picture to make it look more realistic than it does on an accurate display?


Don't quite understand. The vast majority of movies are created to look realistic. That's why i said if the majority of movies still look fake, red-pink faces consistently, then their is a oversaturation problem. I was watching the patriot last night, that movie has tones of pink tones. Was it intentional, bad remastering, i don't know, but when movies just look bad i accept it. But it's like torture to watch.

...ok, so what's wrong with what he said?


Bass, mid-bass- more dynamics, is it even debateable?

Don't quite understand. The vast majority of movies are created to look realistic. Wrong. Read the post http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=16047666&postcount=431
I was watching the patriot last night, that movie has tones of pink tones. Was it intentional, bad remastering, i don't know, but when movies just look bad i accept it. But it's like torture to watch. It is called creative license. If you don't like it, take it up with Mr. Gibson (the director) and Mr. Deschanel (the DP). Or you can grab your remote, and dial it to your subjective tastes, but don't impose them on us or denigrate calibration.

My tarnished view came from the arrogance of some posts by ISF calibrators over on UK AVForums and here on AVSForum by some ISF and or THX calibrators. When the training that entitles them to use the logos and claim superior knowledge require so little time to acquire.

I also held erronous assumption about ISF training emphasizing greyscale color accuracy and often overlooking possible impact on contrast ratio and the importance of gamma. Also the erronous assumption that since they handout DVE discs at some ISF courses, the trainees use it to set black level and white level, when the dvd version I have at least does not have ideal test screens to do it. Both these assumptions have been declared wrong by people who have been on the ISF course.

So this thread has reassured me of the competence of ISF training and dispelled my erroronous assumptions. I am now more likely to hire a calibrator when I buy a new display.

Actually, you shouldn't really be too reassured that everyone with ISF training will be doing a good job, because the fact is many don't. ISF training is like a drivers license. It tells you that the calibrator has received training, but it doesn't mean that he's any good at it. That's why we've been telling you that you shouldn't take anything for granted, no matter what logo's he's sporting, you need to evaluate the competence of the specific calibrator, if you're going to hire one.

I am sady still somewhat puzzeled by some of the pro calibrators saying it is dependent of having a good calibrator, and that they have been less than impressed by some other pros work. White level, black level, greyscale color accuracy, color saturation, all strike me as relatively simple to get right or as close as possible to the standards - at least in theory. Gamma seems to have some disagreement as to what is ideal, Color primaries that are not perfect and compensating for them seems more complex.

What are the common missteps of lesser pro and diy calibrators. Why do some people have such a tarnished view of calibrated displays, what have they seen done wrong.

Yes, some of the points above would seem relatively simple to get right. And some of the mistakes I see amazes me just as much as it amazes you. Some of the specific examples I have seen, from other "professional" calibrators (really, it has just been dealers that have taken a course, and thinks they can carry out a calibration every other month or so). Note that the errors I mention here, is my best guesses as to the mistakes that have been made, based on the errors I'm seeing. I consider myself fairly good at guessing other people's mistakes, because I've made most of them myself in the past, so I'll know the difference...

The common mistake is using color filters to set color saturation. With any display that has a CMS, and especially Pioneer plasma's, you will get really oversaturated color using this method. What this tells me is that the calibrator is just doing "paint by numbers" as I believe Glen called it previously, he's just doing what he learned, not looking at the picture to see if it looks right - anyone who has seen fairly accurate pictures once in a while, should know right away that something's off. Actually, in two of the instances I experienced this, the customers had turned down the saturation control, because even they could see that it was off, and it was still way too high...

Another mistake I have seen is people only looking at a greyscale, not even checking primaries. Some tv's have fixed settings for different gamuts, where the calibrator just left it at standard and corrected the greyscale. In one instance I have seen the calibrator simply leaving a CMS alone, that works perfectly fine and increased image quality a great deal - probably he didn't understand how it worked, and again just worked the greyscale.

Like you mentioned, failing to compensate for incorrect primaries. I guess this is debatable, but I have found that when primaries are skewed, you need to change the target secondaries, to make the gamut as linear as possible within the primaries at hand. It simply looks less wrong to my eyes to do it this way, but as soon as you start compensating for errors, I guess it will be debatable what compromise is the best. I tried getting Joe Kane's view on this, but it's not very easy to get Joe to talk about compromises... He always seems to favor the "then use another display!" approach...

Another possible error, that I'll admit I don't have a specific example of, but would be fairly likely, and that I have mentioned earlier, would be failing to balance the color control of a JVC projector, to even out the balance between oversaturated primaries and undersaturated color brightness. Setting the color control "accurately", would yield very oversaturated colors, so you would need to set the color control lower than what measurements or color filters tells you to do. This again has a bit to do with compensating for incorrect primaries.

I don't recall having seen black level set poorly. I have however several times seen white level set poorly, again on Pioneer tv's. It seemed obvious that the calibrator simply set it at clipping, and not checking for color shifts or gamma skewing.

I don't recall having seen people failing to set the greyscale to somewhere close to D65. I have however seen one instance of an error that I don't really know whether it's common or not. But on some displays, if you turn down RGB bias, it's clipping the color you turn down, so instead of i.e. turning down red, it may be better to turn up green and blue. This is very specific of each display though. Some seem to believe that you should never touch the green controls. While you most often will get finer adjustment when using red and blue, it's not a rule that is set in stone, and you should definately try to figure out which approach works best with a specific display.

Last but certainly not least, some calibrators apparently only adjust the display, forgetting that there may be settings in the sources that need adjusting. In one case, the calibrator had failed to recognize that the DVD player was set for 4:3 output.

Now, this may sound like I have done tons of calibrations on previously calibrated kit, but actually that's just because most of these errors were done simultaneously by the same calibrator... I will definately agree that if you have seen a "calibration" done with such sloppiness, I can understand why some people think they don't like "accurate" pictures. That was _not_ what they were looking at, not even close - and definately not as close as those displays could be.

Don't quite understand. The vast majority of movies are created to look realistic. That's why i said if the majority of movies still look fake, red-pink faces consistently, then their is a oversaturation problem.

If you think movies look realistic, you have a really skewed opinion about what "realistic" looks like. Anyway, no matter whether there are many or few that is intended to look realistic, lets just grab one of those imaginary films as an example. Pick whatever you like. If that particular film has been made to look realistic, what specifically is it you are doing to make it look realistic on your display, that you don't believe a calibrator is doing?

And where did you get the belief that calibrated displays are oversaturated?

Bass, mid-bass- more dynamics, is it even debateable?

My pair of bookshelf Dunlavy SC-II.a's will blow away most floorstanders (less or more expensive) as they have a flatter freq response, are phase and time aligned, have better impulse response and spectral decay. The only area in which they need help is bass - which is why I have them EQ'ed with a Sunfire sub to handle anything below 45 Hz.

So yes, it's VERY debatable.

Actually, you shouldn't really be too reassured that everyone with ISF training will be doing a good job, because the fact is many don't. ISF training is like a drivers license. It tells you that the calibrator has received training, but it doesn't mean that he's any good at it.I agree with this, but I think with ISF it has even gone beyond this somewhat, were even teachers haven't understood some stuff I would consider fairly basic. I'm thinking specifically of on/off CR where one of the main teachers was dissing the hard to believe 15k:1 claim for the JVC RS1 because humans can only see 1200:1 (his claim) and then more stuff that showed he was a little mixed up about CRs and what they meant (including that there are different kinds). I believe he understands it better now, but I'm not sure how deep this lack of comprehension of that subject matter went in the organization. I know that I heard things about what they were teaching which I thought were pretty shocking as far as not understanding things, given that they were supposed to be the leaders in the industry for teaching things about home theater. I'm not sure if Jim Burns still teaches ISF stuff, but he didn't seem to get it not that long ago and refused to read any further after he thought something was false that wasn't (thus helping ensure he still wouldn't get it).

Fortunately, I think it is possible to do a good job calibrating even without understanding all the reasons for things or what limiting factors were.

--Darin

...... Just like i did not need equipment to know sxrd's where oversaturated big time.....

Need proof? Need proof of what? That i know what realistic images look like? So let me get this straight, when the chroma level on a SXRD is turned down, let's say to a proper level, the image is over saturated...... Interesting observation.

Proof, proof would be something like your grayscale adjustments by eye, no meter, were exactly D65 (+/- .004x,y). Changing color and tint to make a picture look more natural is only a band aid approach to compensate when there are errors in the grayscale.

If you think movies look realistic, you have a really skewed opinion about what "realistic" looks like. Anyway, no matter whether there are many or few that is intended to look realistic, lets just grab one of those imaginary films as an example. Pick whatever you like. If that particular film has been made to look realistic, what specifically is it you are doing to make it look realistic on your display?


See, i don't get this, if calibrated displays are not oversaturated then why don't movies look realistic to you? If skin tones are not oversaturated? Sounds like you fall into the 99% oversaturated camp. If your display is accurate only movies with intentional oversaturation will be noticeable and you will be able to pick them out.

The only area in which they need help is bass


Exactly, don't forget the mid-bass. Sounds like your system is not complete.

Since when has film been about realism? It is, more often than not, anything BUT real. Film has its own look that, in many ways, is completely unrealisitic. We can't even capture all of the qualities of film (let alone of a specific film) exactly once we transfer it to video, so you're talking about two general layers of seperation from reality, not to mention all the specific creative changes made along the way.

Your display isn't a window to reality - it's a frame for displaying moving art. Calibration is all about getting your frame to display the art as accurately as possible. If you're looking for realism, the world around you would be the best place to go.

Exactly, don't forget the mid-bass. Sounds like your system is not complete.

I said they're flat (+/- 1.5dB) down to 45Hz. They're EQ'ed with a sub that takes care of 45Hz-18Hz.

Explain how that's incomplete.

I am amazed that this debate is still going on. The content you play on your displays is authored to a standard. If your display is calibrated to that standard as well, you will be able to see everything you were intended to see. Otherwise, you are shortchanging yourself.


Ain't that the truth ! There are a few here who feel that:

1) Calibration is useless since their favorite display can't be brought as close to the standards as other technologies

2) That seasoning to taste is better than accurate so accuracy be damned

There are a few hold outs but they refuse to consider the quality calibration brings to the table for the above reasons.

Art

Since when has film been about realism? It is, more often than not, anything BUT real. Film has its own look that, in many ways, is completely unrealisitic. We can't even capture all of the qualities of film (let alone of a specific film) exactly once we transfer it to video, so you're talking about two general layers of seperation from reality, not to mention all the specific creative changes made along the way.

Your display isn't a window to reality - it's a frame for displaying moving art. Calibration is all about getting your frame to display the art as accurately as possible. If you're looking for realism, the world around you would be the best place to go.

Really? Then why even use HD cameras? Why even bother with new technology like dlp in theaters if film is all we need? Why can't a display-technology be used as a window for reality? I felt like i was at the super bowl watching it on hd. It's a window for me. Atleast close as you can come sitting on your couch. Just because film has limitations of looking out a window don't mean other technologies are not striveing for that effect. That's the way we are heading like it or not. I know you have heard with plasma it's like looking out a window. Are you on meds?

This level (astronomical on/off CR) CRT performance is generally reserved for projection. You just don't get that performance from a direct view CRT. Internal reflection, etc. all raise the black-level.

No, you still get astronomical on/off with a direct-view CRT just like projection CRT. You are talking about poor ANSI CR, in which case what you say is true(poor ANSI CR performance) but it is true for both direct-view and projection.

Otto,
Perhaps this belongs elsewhere, but you seem quite knowledgeble.
I'm familiar with color calibration as it relates to graphic arts and photography where the computer is the principal "agent" for handling color. But I'm not sure how to apply or its its possible to apply this to video projectors.

First, my understanding:
1) In graphic arts, you have Capture devices (cameras), Software applications, Display (Monitors), and Output (printers, principally)
2) Each device has its own "native" colorspace-- and computer based color adjustment (such as colorsync on apple) handles mapping between color gamuts.
3) None of the color spaces overlap precisely.
4) Each device may be profiled (in the case of printers each paper type has a profile) , and the profiles inform the software what colors a device can render.
5) When colors fall out of gamut, i.e. when mapping from a wide gamut (monitor) to a narrow one (printer) you can choose intent: preserve color points and clip out of gamut(absolute), or map the "outer" color points of two gamuts using a function or lookup table (LUT).

6) There are a lot of automated calibration tools (xrite and greytag make them) and there's been a pretty recent trend for highend printers and even some latops to build photospectrometers into the hardware. I.E the printer can "self calibrate" when you load a new paper type.


OKAY now on to the question:
Is there any reason why color management software isn't standardized on this stuff? We've had it in graphic arts forever...

Or more importantly: with printer manufacturers (epson, hp) incorporating high quality photospectrometers into professional photo printers, is there any reason why projector manufacturers have not built in similar capability? I.E. a projector that recalibrates every week as the bulb dims, or one that can adjust to different ambient light (not that there's supposed to be any)

Jeremy


PS:

1) I'm presuming most sources more less interpret the color information on the media in close to an identical fashion (because I never hear talk of profiling or calibrating a DVD player or BluRay player)

2) I'm also presuming that when people talk about devices like the JVC's having oversaturated colors, they mean the device handles a wider color space than rec709 or whatever they master discs with. The function for mapping color from 709 to the native gamut may be a linear function, and there is no real mechanism (like the computer) to customize the lookup beyond some basic controls on the projector.

:) Thanks in advance for your knowledge...

Bass, mid-bass- more dynamics, is it even debateable?

Try working your reading comprehension. As I've said many times this advice comes with a HUGE caveat which is: "AT A GIVEN PRICEPOINT." Cost no object, yes absolutely an equivalent floorstanding speaker overall is a better choice, but the cost jump for the same performance as the equivalent stand-mounted speaker is very significant, such that you can easily move up significantly in quality to a better bookshelf at the same price, and for music uses where sound quality is paramount, I will always choose the superior bookshelf over the inferior floorstander AT A GIVEN PRICEPOINT.

It might surprise you, but speakers are not given away for free. They cost money, and in all discussions money is not irrelevant since presumably most people on AVS buy their speakers rather than steal them.

These discussions about the realism in film and the intent of artists is silly. There are as many ideas on the matter as there are filmmakers. If you don't like what you see, at least if you have a calibrated display you have some idea that you are starting closer to not having mucked up what was intended and you can still adjust it to whatever flavor you like. No one really cares how one watches their display. Think of it like your sex life...no need to even discuss it in public other than to get educated on the facts. If you prefer some perverse practices, keep it in your own theater and don't try to convince the rest of the world that it is the norm.

Really? Then why even use HD cameras? Why even bother with new technology like dlp in theaters if film is all we need? Why can't a display-technology be used as a window for reality? I felt like i was at the super bowl watching it on hd. It's a window for me. Atleast close as you can come sitting on your couch. Just because film has limitations of looking out a window don't mean other technologies are not striveing for that effect. That's the way we are heading like it or not. I know you have heard with plasma it's like looking out a window. Are you on meds?

Who ever said HD cameras or digital cinema projectors were superior to film? Your argument hinges on that assumption, which is flat out wrong - just like most everything else you spew forth here. There are reasons to use film and other reasons to go purely digital.

2) I'm also presuming that when people talk about devices like the JVC's having oversaturated colors, they mean the device handles a wider color space than rec709 or whatever they master discs with. The function for mapping color from 709 to the native gamut may be a linear function, and there is no real mechanism (like the computer) to customize the lookup beyond some basic controls on the projector.


Well, you can do it with a proper CMS, which external processors and some (more and more these days) displays have. The JVC has a CMS built in, but doesn't function as properly as it should, which causes other additional problems. It isn't overly complicated per se, but it isn't simple either to do correctly.

People use "over-saturation" in two ways, one for colorspace and the other for chroma levels. Possibly a third is, color bit depth, three-chip vs. single chip, for projection.

Elevated chroma levels can do more harm to an image than expanded color space

Really? Then why even use HD cameras? Why even bother with new technology like dlp in theaters if film is all we need? Why can't a display-technology be used as a window for reality? I felt like i was at the super bowl watching it on hd. It's a window for me. Asking for another verbose lecture from the Cam Man again, huh? This time about HD shooting techniques used to reach the visual goals of the production (Planet Earth vs anything shot as narrative film http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_(Panavision))

HD is capable of being shot to communicate "immediacy" (the Superbowl), or "once upon a time" (narrative film). So, are you of the opinion that movies should be shot to look like it does when you watch live sports?

Take a look at any television show. Tonight's episode of House takes place in multiple room/locations and times of day. The color of light used imparts a wide range of skin tones and saturations. Which would you say is realistic, accurate, or otherwise, Zues?

Who ever said HD cameras or digital cinema projectors were superior to film?


George Lucas. You think you know more than him Hog?


Artical From 2001.

For the next year you will begin to see George Lucas heavily campaigning and championing a new film technology... It is this Sony/Panavision 24fps HD Camera. The camera is all Sony, but the lenses are all Panavision.
This technology is easily a zillion times more important for film than STAR WARS itself from what I can tell. The below link is to the first installment of the George Lucas HD Propaganda Machine... There will be many many more documentaries and specials and public demonstrations... His goal is to wake up the world and tell them that film is dead. That you should no longer shoot on film, that your film's final color does not have to be in the fate of a batch of chemicals... that you can control it and have it shown exactly as you envision it. It is cheaper, faster and easier. You can shoot with practical lighting, you don't have to load the camera after 15 minutes as the tapes are 50 minutes... and the cost of these tapes are under $100. The contrast and resolution you will find out is superior to film itself. Sound and image are recorded in the same place. And the technology is only going to become better.
There is much much more for you to learn from George... How do I know? Well, I know one of George's disciples...
Robert Rodriguez went to Skywalker Ranch to mix sound on SPY KIDS. While at the Lucas Compound, the guru of digital cinema showed Robert the glory and the vision of Digital Filmmaking... all the tricks, all the advantages... Showed him everything. The results? Robert will most likely never shoot on film again. Robert's reaction? He bought one of the HD cameras and began shooting tests... Then did 35mm and Digital side by side comparisons. Then transferred the Digital to film and the results... Even on 35mm film stock, the Digital shot footage is vastly superior in image quality, color brightness, deep dark blacks... everything... and that's on film, apparently with digital projection, there's another step up... I can't speak towards that yet, as I've only seen Rodriguez's 35 / Digital side by side comparison footage...
At SXSW, Rodriguez demonstrated the technology to an audience filled with filmmakers... and audible gasps were heard throughout. Robert was proclaiming film dead... describing the film footage as, "Looking like someone wiped their ass with it!"
Look for Lucas to use Episode 2 as a springboard for convincing the world of film that a change is coming. Watch for him to work quite hard to win a Best Cinematography Oscar with Episode 2... There is a revolution coming folks... Right now the cameras are expensive... but already the prices are coming down... as demand and innovation continues in terms of size and lightness... prepare to see a RADICAL change in the way film is shot... the price of filmmaking change... and a non-degradation of image through the developing process.
Robert describes it as the way you dream of cinema looking... The way you remember it, not what it actually is.

Not explicit ones except for DCI minimums as mentioned. However, the reference is two-fold, what the mastering engineer saw (a CRT most likely) and then further what is intended so far as that may be limited by CRT technology. CRT has enormous on/off CR performance, so reaching that increases the accuracy of our reproduction relative to the reference. Further, to the extent that CRT does not go fully to black, we can assume rather safely that certain scenes that go fully to black 0% should be as utterly black as possible, and if we were to have a display that exceeded the already astronomical on/off CR performance of a CRT, we would then slightly depart from the limited reference performance if it yields better performance and is pretty confidently what is intended by the director etc.

In any case, my point is that things like resolution/MTF, scaling quality, contrast performance, lack of lens aberrations, all these various attributes of imaging all still lead to the most accurate reproduction of the reference. They are all part of accuracy. Those who are under the impression that only chromaticity, greyscale, and gamma are part of an accurate image are misunderstanding what is intended in the larger sense of an accurate image. Accuracy involves all aspects of image reproduction.

Okay. This is not really the kind of standard that people around here have been advocating but I see your point. I also question how many here would consider the RS1 to be an accurate projector. Show of hands? How many consider the RS1 to be an accurate projector?

One could also argue that the higer contrast than film studio monitors that are used in mastering are used just for the mastering process so that information is not lost. Thus, the accurate way of watching a disk is by calibrating to film-like contrast ratios. That is, after all, the way the director truly intended things to be viewed in a theater. Any question about that? I think that film contrast ratios are around 1,500:1 for on/off and 150:1 for ansi contrast (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=844504). Can we all agree that if our projectors exceed those contrast ratios than we are not being accurate to the director's original intent?

George Lucas. You think you know more than him Hog?


.

I do and even the most rabid digital capture fans accept that film still surpasses any current digital capture system in terms of latitude.

I've yet to see any digital footage that looks better than film.

That's not to say it can't be impressive on its own terms : I love how Miami Vice looks.

The later all-digital star wars films look awful IMO.

Okay. This is not really the kind of standard that people around here have been advocating but I see your point. I also question how many here would consider the RS1 to be an accurate projector. Show of hands? How many consider the RS1 to be an accurate projector?

One could also argue that the higer contrast than film studio monitors that are used in mastering are used just for the mastering process so that information is not lost. Thus, the accurate way of watching a disk is by calibrating to film-like contrast ratios. That is, after all, the way the director truly intended things to be viewed in a theater. Any question about that? I think that film contrast ratios are around 1,500:1 for on/off and 150:1 for ansi contrast (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=844504). Can we all agree that if our projectors exceed those contrast ratios than we are not being accurate to the director's original intent?

I'm very happy with the accuracy of my HD1. I've never watched any of my work on it and thought it looked particularly unfaithful given the limitations of transfering film to video.

Yes its oversaturated , mine feels like the gamma is slipping lower and its developing a yellowish hue over time but generally I'm happy with it.

I'm currently trying to get a high end PC based CMS working on it.

The later all-digital star wars films look awful IMO.

Can't agree more....Got hold of a Return of the Jedi 1080p HDTV broadcast copy. Eager to see it on my PJ. Will get the Revenge of the Sith from HDTV soon but on 1080i.

Okay. This is not really the kind of standard that people around here have been advocating but I see your point. I also question how many here would consider the RS1 to be an accurate projector. Show of hands? How many consider the RS1 to be an accurate projector?



Not me,nor the RS2. They throw a nice picture though.

Art

See, i don't get this, if calibrated displays are not oversaturated then why don't movies look realistic to you?.

Because most of them aren't meant to, as has been pointed out to you by one of those that are in the business of making them. I put more emphasis on his judgement on this matter than I put on yours or mine.

If skin tones are not oversaturated? Sounds like you fall into the 99% oversaturated camp.

Why do you keep making the conclusion that when I say "not realistic", I inherently mean "oversaturated"? There are _a lot_ of ways a movie can look unrealistic, without being oversaturated.

Does "Schindlers List" look realistic to you? Does it look oversaturated?

Really? Then why even use HD cameras? Why even bother with new technology like dlp in theaters if film is all we need? Why can't a display-technology be used as a window for reality?

You are mixing it all up. There are limitations to the technology, but within those limitations, you CAN make the display system a window for reality. However, most filmmakers _choose_ not to do so. It's not about whether it can be done, but whether the filmmaker wants to. Most of them don't want to. Better technology in the movie business has nothing to do with creating a more realistic window to reality, but everything to do with giving the filmmaker greater artistic freedom to do whatever it is he wants to do. IF he wants to create a window for reality, you DO need you display to deliver an accurate representation of the material he is giving you.

Even if you're right, and any given film is created to look "realistic", if your display doesn't deliver the image the way the filmmaker thinks your display should be delivering it, you will _not_ see it displayed realistically. I have no idea why you would think that "accurate" is contradictory to "realistic". You need "accurate" to get "realistic". However, you don't need "realistic" to get "accurate".

Do you think Van Gogh couldn't have painted a more realistic portrait of a vase of flowers, if he wanted to?

Is there any reason why color management software isn't standardized on this stuff? We've had it in graphic arts forever...

Apart from the fact that no manufacturer is adequately prepared to invest in accurate pictures, no.


Or more importantly: with printer manufacturers (epson, hp) incorporating high quality photospectrometers into professional photo printers, is there any reason why projector manufacturers have not built in similar capability? I.E. a projector that recalibrates every week as the bulb dims, or one that can adjust to different ambient light (not that there's supposed to be any)

Same answer as above. As I've said before, the goal isn't carrying out a calibration. The goal is to get accurate pictures. I see no reason, other than economics, why you couldn't create self-calibrating displays. Bang & Olufsen has already done so with a plasma line. I'm not sure how well it works, but since I know they're intentionally calibrating for 8500 kelvin and not D65, I know that it doesn't help our goal much. If a display was to be designed specifically for this purpose, I don't see why it wouldn't work.

If I had the means, I would try to create such a display, but sadly I'm neither an engineer nor a millionaire. I think the main issue here is that those with the economic means are too focused on turnover to create what is actually the best possible picture, and those with the engineering skills to make it work don't have the necessary knowledge about image quality to fully appreciate what it would take to get there. I do believe that there are auto-calibrating flat panel LCD displays available in the professional world though. How well it works, I can't tell you since I haven't worked with them yet.

I do think accurate images is increasingly becoming a marketing buzzword. Maybe because of this, some manufacturers will actually start creating displays that are capable of delivering that, without the need of a professional calibrator. Contrary to what some might think, I actually look forward to that. I haven't dedicated my life to calibration, I've dedicated it to delivering the best possible pictures. There may be calibrators that feels differently about this, so this is of course just my opinion, I'm not speaking for the whole industry.




2) I'm also presuming that when people talk about devices like the JVC's having oversaturated colors, they mean the device handles a wider color space than rec709 or whatever they master discs with. The function for mapping color from 709 to the native gamut may be a linear function, and there is no real mechanism (like the computer) to customize the lookup beyond some basic controls on the projector.


Assuming it is linear, yes - which I believe the JVC's are not. I do believe that a DLP is the most linear technology, so that is what should be used for such a display. Joe Kane's Samsung projectors could be said to be partly self-calibrating, you don't actually adjust the colors, you measure the native colors and punch in the measurements, and the projector does the rest for you. This, I believe, is actually very close to what you're asking for, and basically why the Samsung's are the most color accurate projectors you will be able to find, provided you use an accurate meter for the measurements. In theory, it should be fairly easy to deliver that projector with a meter and create an auto-setup function, but in reality a meter accurate enough to make it work properly would probably cost a lot more than calling in a professional with the necessary tools once a year... What I've found using the Samsung's, is that if your measurements are just a bit off, the LUT function will screw up the picture quite a bit. Which is basically the reason calibration is so important: In reality, it's just much more cost-effective in the end, for the consumer, to design the display for manual calibration, than to implement auto-calibration. Why pay 8k for an auto-calibrating projector, instead of 5k for the same projector plus 400$ (or whatever a regular appointment would cost you) once a year for calibration?

In this country, the auto-setup option for a Cinetal monitor costs about as much as 10 manual calibrations... I'm fairly sure that due to a lot of people being gizmo-holics, it would actually be much easier to sell the auto-calibrating one at a 3k premium...

Zeus,

As Otto and many others have pointed out and even from some reading I have done and most importantly from what I have seen in movies -in most cases they are never meant to be realistic unless you are watching video material or documentaries.

The director and technicans involved in the movie making use their creative imagination.

if you see a an extra disc for exapmle of any movie, you may notice that the extras contain materials shot for video purpose. if you look closely, the material will appera more real to our natural lighting and colour, but the movie itself may have a different impact.

Now if someone wants to make every material he watches as real as possible to the real world he will never stop tweaking a display as the correction factor for movies to movies will vary and it is a tough job anyway not to mention not worth it as well as they are not meant to look that way.

But if the display is calibrated or tuned to standards that are used while making a movie or keeping in mind the viewing of it, there is a greater chance that you may see it as it was intended.

I agree to your point that you may not like a typical shade or filter or intended over saturation but that is a total different point and has nothing to do with calibration. Calibartion is not about ones own liking....Tuning - yes....
This is one area where Tuning is very different from Calibration.

You can tune to calibrate but you cannot calibrate to tune to your liking....

...Can we all agree that if our projectors exceed those contrast ratios than we are not being accurate to the director's original intent?If you are interested in "director's intent" for 35mm film then get a 35mm projector properly calibrated for that medium. If you are interested in "director's intent" for the home video market, then get a video projector properly calibrated for the home video medium. Like Oil v Acrylic paintings, they are recognized as different mediums. The respective creative teams are responsible for properly representing a director's vision in each medium.

As best as I can tell you are trying to make the point that calibration is not worthwhile because it will not make your video projector look like a 35mm film image. You are right it will not. It is not supposed to!

As pointed out in the REC709 thread the current workflow is DI output to{Film/DCI/HD/SD}. Each output format will be best presented within the constraints/strenghts of that particular medium while fulfilling the filmmaker's vision.

One could also argue that the higer contrast than film studio monitors that are used in mastering are used just for the mastering process so that information is not lost. Thus, the accurate way of watching a disk is by calibrating to film-like contrast ratios. That is, after all, the way the director truly intended things to be viewed in a theater. Any question about that? I think that film contrast ratios are around 1,500:1 for on/off and 150:1 for ansi contrast (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=844504). Can we all agree that if our projectors exceed those contrast ratios than we are not being accurate to the director's original intent?

I don't think I agree that what's being shown in a theatre, is necessarily the director's intent. As with our display, it's just an approximation, a compromise that we have to live with to get the films shown. If we only accepted perfection, noone would be watching any movies. What I'm saying is, I'm pretty sure most directors would be very happy to have 20.000:1 on/off, 1000:1 ansi in the theatres. It's just not possible or practical with the technology we have available today.

There was an article about this exact issue (theatres not being the target to reach) a couple of months ago in WSR actually.

Basically, I think we should consider the "standard" for contrast ratio to be "infinite".

George Lucas. You think you know more than him Hog?


Artical From 2001.

........your film's final color does not have to be in the fate of a batch of chemicals... that you can control it and have it shown exactly as you envision it...........Zues, you managed to shoot yourself in the foot here......"shown exactly as you envision it" DOES NOT equal realistic. You just proved your thoughts/concept of realistic were wrong! Additionally, you need to get grasp of reality and drop the "oversaturation" defense, it is not a result of proper calibration, it's an issue fixed by calibration.

Zues, have you ever whatched anything on a "properly calibrated" display? What display, calibrated by? (I hope it wasn't a BB display in the store)

No, you still get astronomical on/off with a direct-view CRT just like projection CRT...if astronomical implies >15,000:1, what specific brand/models of mastering monitor would you list?

I do and even the most rabid digital capture fans accept that film still surpasses any current digital capture system in terms of latitude.Film also has the superior color gamut, practically infinite btw. Intersting considering that 35mm motion picture film prints further reduce "it" (film negative exposure) to only 200-300:1 dynamic range aka contrast.
I've yet to see any digital footage that looks better than film.For good reason..film has the advantages of exposure latitude, near infinite color pallete and in facts tracks color like the human eye “logarithmically”


The later all-digital star wars films look awful IMO.Agreed the original esthetically illustrates your point perfectly IMO.

No, you still get astronomical on/off with a direct-view CRT just like projection CRT. You are talking about poor ANSI CR, in which case what you say is true(poor ANSI CR performance) but it is true for both direct-view and projection.So that "gray glow" you get in a dark room with a DV CRT, when the image is a 0 IRE Black screen, is what exactly? Looks a lot like an LCD or plasma to me.

As best as I can tell you are trying to make the point that calibration is not worthwhile because it will not make your video projector look like a 35mm film image. You are right it will not. It is not supposed to!

That is not the point that I am trying to make.

I agree that calibration is worthwhile but I have argued that we must be realistic in what we are achieving when we do calibrate. Arguments have been made that it is the primary goal of calibration to be as transparent to the source as possible and this transparancy equates with excellence.

We know that most movies are made for the theater and if our goal is accuracy, we should, to the extent possible, strive toward a presentation of a source as it was intended to be presented by the film makers in a theater.
We know that true fidelity to the source is not possible because of the compromises that must be made in the mastering process, but, in all honesty, if accuracy is the goal, why is it not ultimately accurate to view material at home with theater type contrast ratios?

If the on/off or ansi contrast of our displays exceeds that which is possible in a theater, we are fundamentally altering the source in ways that introduce inaccuracies. Those deep blacks that I am seeing on my RS20 are therefore fundamentally inaccurate. That ANSI punch that people talk about is likewise an inaccurate alteration of the source. In both cases, the display is not functioning as a mirror to the source.

[Of course I don't any believe this, but this is the logical extension of the rigidness inherent in devotion to "accuracy" above all other things.]

Basically, I think we should consider the "standard" for contrast ratio to be "infinite".

This is a slippery slope. Surely directors would like the same wide gamut on bluray disks as available on film in theaters so what is the harm of wider gamuts? Purists scoff at this kind of argument. Purists believe that intent is whatever is on the disk. No more. No less.

You are a practical man and I am sure that you would be exactly the kind of person who I would want calibrating my own displays because at the end of the day, you understand the compromises that sometimes have to be made.

but, in all honesty, if accuracy is the goal, why is it not ultimately accurate to view material at home with theater type contrast ratios?

If the on/off or ansi contrast of our displays exceeds that which is possible in a theater, we are fundamentally altering the source in ways that introduce inaccuracies. Those deep blacks that I am seeing on my RS20 are therefore fundamentally inaccurate. That ANSI punch that people talk about is likewise an inaccurate alteration of the source. In both cases, the display is not functioning as a mirror to the source.


Very interesting point. I have been to many theatres recently both old type and new type including one DLP theatre. Firstly you don't see the black bars due to a CIH setup in most but in fading scenes they are never deep black and looks grayish.

Is that a limitaion at theatres? or Is that a standard to follow that absolute black is not to be shown? How do the film maker see this?

Is that a limitaion at theatres? or Is that a standard to follow that absolute black is not to be shown? How do the film maker see this?

It is a limitation in the technology. My guess is correct that film makers would love infinite contrast ratios. My point is that purists tend to ignore this aspect of accuracy.

Lawguy and Anirbana, you are both on to interesting points. Forgive me for continually jumping in to provide some input from the production side, but I think it is useful for you to know, and hopefully enjoyable learning.

If the on/off or ansi contrast of our displays exceeds that which is possible in a theater, we are fundamentally altering the source in ways that introduce inaccuracies. Those deep blacks that I am seeing on my RS20 are therefore fundamentally inaccurate. That ANSI punch that people talk about is likewise an inaccurate alteration of the source. In both cases, the display is not functioning as a mirror to the source.It is a limitation in the technology. My guess is correct that film makers would love infinite contrast ratios. My point is that purists tend to ignore this aspect of accuracy. What we see in the best of theaters is not the same quality with regards to contrast as captured on the original negative film stock. This is a factor of the density of the release print, the lamphouse output, and the SMPTE luminance spec of 12-16 fL. Years ago a compromise was made on the size of lamphouses to save money, but more importantly, the 12-16fL spec was landed at to overcome a nasty physical limitation: shutter strobing/flicker which gets really bad as the luminance reaches 21fL or so. The 12-16fL spec was the compromise, but indeed does compromise the medium. The labs then set printer lights to yield release prints that would render reference white at the specified luminance, which results in a thinner print and lower contrast. The negative has a lot more contrast latitude than we are seeing. The labs can generate release prints that are much more robust, but it would require other changes that are not going to happen. The old Showscan experiment tried to deal with this by using 65mm negative shot and projected at 60fps. Awesome picture, but prohibitively expensive.

My point is that the telecine HD masters have the capability to give us much more of what is on the negative than we get to see at the cinema. Our new digital display technologies that have such great contrast give us the potential to see it "better" than we saw it in theaters with respect to this. Potentially, we could eventually see a similar benefit with regards to color depth.

So, maybe "inaccurate" is not the word for what the RS20 is giving us. It may literally be providing a legitimate improvement to what we see in theaters because it is more faithful to the original photography.

Not sure why there may be poor blacks in digital screenings. DLP doesn't have that mastered yet, but I must say that the really nice theaters in which I've seen digital screenings have looked pretty good. Others are not so good.

My point is that the telecine HD masters have the cability to give us much more of what is on the negative than we get to see at the cinema..

Actually one thing I've noticed in recent years is that because the DI process is fairly freeform in terms of contrast adjustment you get rather a lot of the headroom in the negative appearing on the final print.

In the old days a lab process would have been more limited to additive offsets which wouldn't have allowed you to pull as much information down into the whites. Everything above the white ref point (685 in 10bit code values) would get clipped off on print.

DI allows you to curve this detail down.

The DI process is much closer to a telecine type operation : this can be a good an bad thing.

Normally when I'm doing a telecine type film to video conversion I tend to use a single LUT type operation and "grade" the film into video without doing any hard clipping.

Most people still tend to perform a log to video gamma correction and chop off the headroom: its easier and quicker but the end results only only look acceptable within a fairly narrow range of imagery. However usually we only generate video material for non-critical viewing purposes so the sloppy technique is usually adequate.

I quite often have to explain to clients ( and other facilities) that there is no one set of magic numbers that will transform film into video optimally regardless of image content . That's why you have to do a telecine and pay a guy to subjectively color correct it.

This is a slippery slope. Surely directors would like the same wide gamut on bluray disks as available on film in theaters so what is the harm of wider gamuts? Purists scoff at this kind of argument. Purists believe that intent is whatever is on the disk. No more. No less.

Oh, I think you're misunderstanding the purists here (I consider myself a purist btw, if you hadn't noticed...). I, and surely everyone else, would absolutely LOVE to have a wider gamut. However, what we DON'T want is to expand the gamut of material that wasn't constructed to be expanded. If a director chose to deliver a blu-ray disc with a label on front of it saying "please use DCI gamut for playback", because he mastered it so that it will look right if you expand the gamut from Rec.709 to DCI (or whatever), I most certainly DO want to expand the gamut and make use of the extra colors. The problem is that unless you take this expansion into account when create the software, you cannot expand the gamut at the consumer side, without messing up the colors. So, even if the director's intent was to have a wider gamut, he has chosen a medium that don't support it, so he has adjusted his software accordingly, and you will NOT get the directors intent by expanding the gamut on the consumer side.

I'm sure you already know this, but you're misunderstanding the purists if you think they wouldn't like to have had a wider gamut in the HD standard. But as it stands, that's what we have to live with until someone changes it (x.v.Color doesn't seem to gain much interest).



You are a practical man and I am sure that you would be exactly the kind of person who I would want calibrating my own displays because at the end of the day, you understand the compromises that sometimes have to be made.

Thanks! I may be what you call a practical man, but I do like discussing theory as well ;-) I am a firm believer that the closer you get to theory, the better the practice works.

Oh, I think you're misunderstanding the purists here (I consider myself a purist btw, if you hadn't noticed...). I, and surely everyone else, would absolutely LOVE to have a wider gamut. However, what we DON'T want is to expand the gamut of material that wasn't constructed to be expanded. If a director chose to deliver a blu-ray disc with a label on front of it saying "please use DCI gamut for playback", because he mastered it so that it will look right if you expand the gamut from Rec.709 to DCI (or whatever), I most certainly DO want to expand the gamut and make use of the extra colors. The problem is that unless you take this expansion into account when create the software, you cannot expand the gamut at the consumer side, without messing up the colors. So, even if the director's intent was to have a wider gamut, he has chosen a medium that don't support it, so he has adjusted his software accordingly, and you will NOT get the directors intent by expanding the gamut on the consumer side.

I'm sure you already know this, but you're misunderstanding the purists if you think they wouldn't like to have had a wider gamut in the HD standard. But as it stands, that's what we have to live with until someone changes it (x.v.Color doesn't seem to gain much interest).



Thanks! I may be what you call a practical man, but I do like discussing theory as well ;-) I am a firm believer that the closer you get to theory, the better the practice works.

So to summarize your position: the expansion of ANSI and on/off contrast is OK but the expansion of the gamut is not ok?

If the on/off or ansi contrast of our displays exceeds that which is possible in a theater, we are fundamentally altering the source in ways that introduce inaccuracies. Those deep blacks that I am seeing on my RS20 are therefore fundamentally inaccurate. That ANSI punch that people talk about is likewise an inaccurate alteration of the source. In both cases, the display is not functioning as a mirror to the source.

Mainly due to the gamma curve, I don't think you're right about that. Anyway, what the director is actually seeing on his monitor, may not be his intent. I know that we usually say that what the director is seeing on his monitor is the goal, but that isn't quite accurate. In some cases, the monitor is just a tool used in the creation. You could definately be working on a monitor with poor contrast, and make adjustments that you know will work when you display them on a display with high contrast. It would not be as easy, but you could make it work. Anyone on the creative side can correct me on this if I'm mistaken, but I do believe that's what's being done most of the time actually, in both video and audio. You don't necessarily use the monitor to see things _exactly_ the way it should be in the end, it may be that you use it as a tool to see something specific. You could, for instance, use a display with very bright gamma to make sure nothing is clipping (I'm just making stuff up here to make an example, I don't pretend to know in detail what goes on when creating a movie).

I have, by the way, had several customers in studios who complained very harshly about the black level of digital displays, and were willing to sacrifice in color accuracy to get the black level of a JVC. These guys would definately love to have an infinite contrast projector, because they feel it would make their work much easier. This tells me that what they are trying to do is to create software that would look perfect on an infinite contrast display, but that is harder to do because of the limitations of their monitors. That doesn't mean that they want it to look like it does on their monitors.

So that "gray glow" you get in a dark room with a DV CRT, when the image is a 0 IRE Black screen, is what exactly? Looks a lot like an LCD or plasma to me.

CRT's suffer from flare due to the thick saftey glass bonded to the face. Another problem is in a dark room with no beam current, there are still stray electrons that excite the phosper. No tube grid is a perfect gate. CRT's are by no means perfect. However they still beat any digital projection medium for contrast ratio and more importantly low level detail under 4 ire.

It is a limitation in the technology. My guess is correct that film makers would love infinite contrast ratios. My point is that purists tend to ignore this aspect of accuracy. Good point. I failed to mention benefits that the DI process has brought to both the big screen and HT.

Is that a limitaion at theatres? or Is that a standard to follow that absolute black is not to be shown? How do the film maker see this?

As mentioned, there is an article in WSR a couple of months ago, I don't remember which number exactly, where this topic was brought up - related to audio, though - by Rob Cohen (Mummy 3). He specifically said that he saw the blu-ray version as a possibility to reach a better representation of what he's trying to achieve, because of the limitations of commercial theatres. What he's baiscally saying is that while theatres aren't perfect, they're necessary to reach an audience - thus confirming that what we see in the theatre isn't the goal we're trying to reach. We should be striving for something better, a BETTER representation of the movie that what can be achieved in the theatres.

I actually think this is a very important point in this debate. The viewer never gets to see the original product, all we get to see is a representation - whereever you watch the movie. The theatre is NOT the original, it's still just a representation. This is a very important difference between films and, say, a painting, and this is something that we need to take into concideration when trying to create that representation. We are creating a representation of something that we have never seen the original of. If you have been to the Louvre, you may be able to look at a representation of the Mona Lisa and tell if it's accurate or not. There is no way you can do that with a movie, which is why we need to calibrate, adjust, tune, according to test images, not the running movie (if, of course, you agree that you want the artist to show you his art, instead of deciding how his art should look).

So to summarize your position: the expansion of ANSI and on/off contrast is OK but the expansion of the gamut is not ok?

I'll have to think about what would happen to Ansi, but wrt. on/off, yes definately okay, because expansion of the contrast is something that the artist not only takes into consideration that you could be doing, but something he WANTS you to do to get the best picture. Expansion of the gamut is not. See my earlier post regarding what the director is seeing on his monitor, versus what he's actually trying to put on the disc. Even the monitor in the studio is a compromise.

That's why I'm saying that the "standard" for at least on/off contrast ratio is "as large as possible". The standard for gamut is NOT "as large as possible", but something specific.

Part of the reason you can expand contrast quite a lot without sacrificing the look of the film, is gamma. A bit oversimplified, you could say that a display with 2000:1 on/off and a display with 20.000:1 on/off might have the same gamma, resulting in the same brightness at 5 IRE, but the difference is how well you display what's below that (I know reality is a little different, but...)

Would too high ansi compared with the eye's capability crush blacks compared to a display with lower ansi? Maybe, I never really thought of that, maybe I'll comment on that after giving it some thought.

I'll have to think about what would happen to Ansi, but wrt. on/off, yes definately okay, because expansion of the contrast is something that the artist not only takes into consideration that you could be doing, but something he WANTS you to do to get the best picture. Expansion of the gamut is not. See my earlier post regarding what the director is seeing on his monitor, versus what he's actually trying to put on the disc. Even the monitor in the studio is a compromise.

That's why I'm saying that the "standard" for at least on/off contrast ratio is "as large as possible". The standard for gamut is NOT "as large as possible", but something specific.

Part of the reason you can expand contrast quite a lot without sacrificing the look of the film, is gamma. A bit oversimplified, you could say that a display with 2000:1 on/off and a display with 20.000:1 on/off might have the same gamma, resulting in the same brightness at 5 IRE, but the difference is how well you display what's below that (I know reality is a little different, but...)

Would too high ansi compared with the eye's capability crush blacks compared to a display with lower ansi? Maybe, I never really thought of that, maybe I'll comment on that after giving it some thought.
Very interesting considerations. I think that you are right that the advances in dynamic range are to be made on the lower end.

It is a limitation in the technology. My guess is correct that film makers would love infinite contrast ratios. My point is that purists tend to ignore this aspect of accuracy.

I overlooked that post, I agree that some, maybe even most, tend to ignore or underestimate contrast, and sometimes light output, favoring color accuracy. But the point of that still remains, the fact that you prefer a JVC over, say, a Samsung SPA-800, doesn't have to mean that you don't like accurate pictures. It may just mean that you are focusing on different aspects of what makes the film look "right".

The way I see it, JVC fans take it very much to heart that we complain over it's colors. The reason at least I am complaining about the lack of proper color adjustments in most displays, and especially the JVC's, is that it's something that could have been very easily implemented if you wanted to, not because I think it looks bad. What I'm saying is, it would be a lot easier to implement proper color reproduction into a display with great contrast, than to make a color accurate display have better contrast. So, it bothers me if a display could have been much better, probably even without increasing the price, if you just had made a few more wise choices during development. Creating a display that's fairly accurate is _easy_, if you want to and know how. Creating a display that has a high contrast, especially along with high light output, on the other hand is quite hard. If they could spend all that money developing a chip that has insanely high contrast, why the "#¤%"#¤£$€ £"#¤%£$@€ ¤#%"¤#%$€ couldn't they implement one teeny-weeny little CMS control that works? Others don't have to use it if they don't want to, but why should those who can live with inaccurate color have all that 15.000:1 fun for themselves?

It just makes me mad, not only at JVC but anyone else who can't get it remotely right, that I as a non-educated sales guy (I started out 12 years ago in what equates to Best Buy overhere...), with no engineering skills whatsoever, within 10 minutes of testing a product, can basically point at a bunch of "easy" ways to significantly improve the picture, often without adding any manufacturing costs at all, compared to all the other nonsense that could have been left out. That's why it's so easy to mock JVC, even though they basically make some of the best projectors outthere (within the price range at least).

Calibrating a projector for great pictures should be a matter of working WITH the projector to reach an accurate image, not working AGAINST the projector to make it work. From where I'm standing (I know, I just said I'm not an engineer so I may be ignorant), designing a projector that is easily calibratable to great pictures is bloody simple. Calibrating a projector that has been designed that way, is bloody simple (case in point: Samsung). Getting a good picture - by calibration or by eye - from a projector that wasn't designed to be calibratable, is neigh freaking impossible (bar the JVC's, which aren't remotely as bad as we tend to make them sound when we're mocking it's colors).

Gah! Rant over.

Personally, I think contrast is quite important, and as I said I believe the ISF officially states contrast as number 1 on the list of how important different factors are (or 2, below light output? Above color anyway). However, I do think that when you reach a minimum level of contrast, the differences in reality starts to become less distracting. As I said, I have done several JVC vs Sim2 demonstrations, where most commented that while they did see the difference in contrast, it didn't make much difference to the overall experience - most stated the difference in sharpness and color as the most noticable (when calibrated for similar brightness and gamma - about 2.4 in case you're wondering). Which one people preferred, wasn't as clear.

Projector technology, native contrast ratio, light output and gamma are so interrelated that many overlook the correlation.

My JVC RS2 is corrected with a Radiance. When the bulb lost over half the light output, the picture really began to perform better than the 9500LC. On my 110" screen, black got down to .0006fL. White was not all that bright, however when the eyes fully adjusted to the dark environment, the picture was so enjoyable, blacks, even in very low APL scenes were black.
CRT's suffer from flare due to the thick saftey glass bonded to the face. Another problem is in a dark room with no beam current, there are still stray electrons that excite the phosper. No tube grid is a perfect gate. CRT's are by no means perfect. However they still beat any digital projection medium for contrast ratio and more importantly low level detail under 4 ire.I understand all that on the CRT, what too many are trying to do with digital is make a light cannon. They want a 120" screen or bigger with a luminance of over 20fL and 0fL blacks, perfect colorspace and unbelivable sharpness. I have the sams sort of high hopes, I want to win the lottery!

And survey says; "Dynamic Range" is the #1 factor in a good picture........ (this is presented in the ISF training classes)

...We know that most movies are made for the theater and if our goal is accuracy, we should, to the extent possible, strive toward a presentation of a source as it was intended to be presented by the film makers in a theater....This is just not true.

The process of DI to film creates source intended to be accurate for film.
The process of DI to video creates source intended to be accurate for home video.

In most cases the creative team, not the director, executes the process.

You seem to have faith that the DI to film process is "accurate" but the DI to video is not :confused:.

Once the creative team produces the video source, that our standard, not the film output or the DCI output.

You seem to have faith that the DI to film process is "accurate" but the DI to video is not :confused:.


I think this issue demonstrates that we pick and choose those things that we feel we need to be accurate to. Certainly, no studio monitor has 1000:1 ANSI contrast. Can we say that it is true to the source to watch something mastered on a 150:1 display on a 1000:1 display when it is likely that using the display with superior ANSI contrast will alter the source? That 1000:1 ANSI display cannot be faithful to the source.

I didn't raise the point of standards for contrast, but there is no obstacle toward contrast being the same in both film and home video. Why should they not be the same if our goal is to be faithful to the source?

The truth is that our high contrast displays are not mirrors to the source. They improve on the source. People can argue that expanded gamuts operate similarly. I don't agree with that, but it is a logical argument.

You will say that DVDs and Bluray Disks are mastered to look good on many different kinds of displays with all kinds of CRs, but that argument is of no help to you because those making the disks certainly know that many displays out there have expanded gamuts as well.

I think this issue demonstrates that we pick and choose those things that we feel we need to be accurate to. Certainly, no studio monitor has 1000:1 ANSI contrast. Can we say that it is true to the source to watch something mastered on a 150:1 display on a 1000:1 display when it is likely that using the display with superior ANSI contrast will alter the source? That 1000:1 ANSI display cannot be faithful to the source...Agreed. The very high ANSI/high brightness current gen LCDs/Plasmas give a very different look tomovies. However, to my eye the delta between say a 750:1 Sharp 12kII and say a 150:1 Sony G70 CRT is within an acceptable margin.

I didn't raise the point of standards for contrast, but there is no obstacle toward contrast being the same in both film and home video. Why should they not be the same if our goal is to be faithful to the source?
This is our greatest difference of opinion. What is this "source" you speak of :). There is a film source, a DCI source, and a video source. They all have different characteristics (gamut, gamma, color depth, CR, white level, ...). The current vision in the industry is to present content which is optomized for each platform. Are you advocating a lowest common denominator approach?

George Lucas. You think you know more than him Hog?

Obviously you have no idea how to answer my question with specifics - that "artical" [sic] reads like a snake-oil ad written by the guy on Audiogon who sells the bottles of rocks that improve the sound of your system.

George Lucas shot in digital primarily because he relied so heavily on CGI for his movies. Having the material in the digital realm from the start was a huge time and cost saver for him. Had he shot on flim, he would have had to digitally scanned all of it before doing any of the CGI work, which was quite extensive - most of the sets were blue or green screens with few or no props.

Digital cameras are making progress, but film is hardly a dead medium. You really do have some crazy ideas...

The truth is that our high contrast displays are not mirrors to the source. They improve on the source. People can argue that expanded gamuts operate similarly. I don't agree with that, but it is a logical argument.

I don't really see the point in making arguments that you think are "logical", but don't agree with. Of course people could argue that. People could obviously also argue that most movies should look realistic, but that doesn't make it so.

As I have argued above, I don't agree that maximizing contrast is making the image less accurate, so that's the best answer I can give you.

You will say that DVDs and Bluray Disks are mastered to look good on many different kinds of displays with all kinds of CRs, but that argument is of no help to you because those making the disks certainly know that many displays out there have expanded gamuts as well.

Yes, but I think most of those making the discs see it this way: They try to create the best possible product in an ideal-world scenario, to the best of their abilities. If the customer chooses to f*** up the picture in the end, there's nothing they can do about that in the studio anyway. Actually, if you look at most newer action flix, I'd argue that the artists are definately NOT taking into account that most consumers will watch it on an oversaturated display - many new movies are intentionally oversaturated in the source, so that if you watch it on an oversaturated display, it will look absolutely terrible. If anything, I'd say a lot of new movies look subjectively better when viewed on an UNDERsaturated display. I've never heard of anyone creating a movie to intentionally look better on displays with an expanded gamut, or any other errors that one could take into account if one wanted to.

So that "gray glow" you get in a dark room with a DV CRT, when the image is a 0 IRE Black screen, is what exactly? Looks a lot like an LCD or plasma to me.

That's called a black level that is adjusted too high. Or a sh*tty tv.

Just as "color" movies were developed to get people into the theaters, "can't get color on TV" next came "wide-screen", Can't get wide-screen on TV" Then there was "Cinerama" .......... now we have DI something in the Theaters we can't get at home........

Just because TV manufacturers produce wide gamut displays an advertise such to the unknowing, I doubt if we see DI mastered media for the Home Theater any time soon. They will continue to re-master into the REC 709 colorspace for quite some time.

That's called a black level that is adjusted too high. Or a sh*tty tv.Name a DV that is as dark when it is turned on as it is when it is turned off. You actually contend that a DV CRT TV, with no input signal, in a dark room, will look as it does when turned off?

Name a DV that is as dark when it is turned on as it is when it is turned off. You actually contend that a DV CRT TV, with no input signal, in a dark room, will look as it does when turned off?

Totally agree with you Glen. I've yet to see a CRT that didn't require some energizing at it's pedestal black level to enable proper calibration. I've always regarded the "total" blacks of CRT to be mostly a combination of wishful thinking and compromised setup.

I've also never seen a CRT projector that didn't exhibit timing or phosphor lag on the tubes leading to CMY rainbowing; not to the same degree as single chip rainbows on dlp but quite obvious nonetheless.

Why do you keep making the conclusion that when I say "not realistic", I inherently mean "oversaturated"? There are _a lot_ of ways a movie can look unrealistic, without being oversaturated


Thanks for the clarification. My point is movies that *are* suppose to look realistic and there will be redish-pink tones to pick. Take for instance King Kong, there is artistic intent to make scenes look old, but skin tones throughout look great. Now, everytime you see pink panther skin tones do you automaticaly assume that was the intent? I sure don't. I'll chalk it up to poor calibration, or poor equipment. I don't think you can make a JVC look as good as a Sony, but i could be wrong.

Totally agree with you Glen. I've yet to see a CRT that didn't require some energizing at it's pedestal black level to enable proper calibration. I've always regarded the "total" blacks of CRT to be mostly a combination of wishful thinking and compromised setup.


My computer monitor has better blacks than any digital display ever made.
If i remember right with rear crt, with bright scenes you could see some movement in the black levels with bright scenes, but it had some of the deepest black levels i ever seen, and torture scenes with very little light it was and still is the king. I've seen some direc view that had super ink blacks with bright scenes, in this rare case i agree with wiggles assesment.

Name a DV that is as dark when it is turned on as it is when it is turned off. You actually contend that a DV CRT TV, with no input signal, in a dark room, will look as it does when turned off?

DV, I'm guessing you mean digital video device, not only a projector? I'd have to say that Samsung back lit LED that does one million to one. When it goes to complete black you can't tell if it's on or off! If you mean projector, well I'm waiting for that one too! :p

DV aka Direct View -CRT

Now, everytime you see pink panther skin tones do you automaticaly assume that was the intent? I sure don't.

That's because you don't calibrate your display.

If you had a properly calibrated display, you'd know that what you're seeing is correct - or at least as correct as possible within the limitations of the display (assuming you don't have color decoder errors or a lack of calibration controls).

That's because you don't calibrate your display.

If you had a properly calibrated display, you'd know that what you're seeing is correct - or at least as correct as possible within the limitations of the display (assuming you don't have color decoder errors or a lack of calibration controls).I really think Zues continually refers to the factory OOTB settings and the advice from the manufacturers customer service rep who says "you don't need to calibrate your display, they are calibrated at the factory" i.e. Factory presets = calibrated :eek:

Name a DV that is as dark when it is turned on as it is when it is turned off. You actually contend that a DV CRT TV, with no input signal, in a dark room, will look as it does when turned off?

No, where did I say that? I just said that the on/off CR capability of a CRT is essentially the same whether it is direct-view or projection. Neither do you have utterly pitch black on a projection CRT, but it is extremely dark, the same is true on a direct-view. A direct view has higher foot lamberts due to its smaller screen size which increase both white and black level compared to an equal-area comparison of a projection CRT on a normal screen size, but the on/off CR performance is still very much comparable if calibrated using comparable methods.

I am simply rejecting your assertion that a direct-view has inferior on/off CR compared to a projection CRT, this is untrue. You originally attributed your claim to "Internal reflection, etc. all raise the black-level" which is true with regards to ANSI CR but not on/off CR. But by the same token, projection CRTs also suffer from the same spill effects(which in my opinion are more objectionable on a projection CRT partly because the image is so much larger thus it jumps out at you more, but I would still say they're comparable if you disragard the huge difference in image size) which leads to very low ANSI CR performance. My point is that direct-views and projection CRTs are very comparable in both on/off CR strengths and ANSI CR weaknesses.

A CRT is a CRT, within reason, whether you're looking right at it, or you stick a lens in front of it in order to project it onto a screen surface, at least with regards to on/off CR performance capabilities.

I've also never seen a CRT projector that didn't exhibit timing or phosphor lag on the tubes leading to CMY rainbowing; not to the same degree as single chip rainbows on dlp but quite obvious nonetheless.

Great to know that I'm not out in the wilderness on this one, you can't imagine how many people don't believe this, or the similar effect on plasmas! On the other hand, you don't have this kind of problem quite so bad if you have slow green phosphor, but then you get horrible green trails which are way way worse IMO. Better to have fast phosphors and just run the refresh higher, it can practically eliminate the effect unless you shoot your eyes around on high-contrast B&W especially and go looking for it. 60p on a CRT projector bothers me quite a bit because of this, but 72p is pretty much solid unless I go looking for them purposefully.

My computer monitor has better blacks than any digital display ever made.
If i remember right with rear crt, with bright scenes you could see some movement in the black levels with bright scenes, but it had some of the deepest black levels i ever seen, and torture scenes with very little light it was and still is the king. I've seen some direc view that had super ink blacks with bright scenes, in this rare case i agree with wiggles assesment.

No, it does not. As Glen rightly points out a CRT properly setup never goes *totally* black.

The brightside HDR with modulated LED backlight goes completely black. As in no light output whatsoever, at all. It is completely nonvisible in a pitch-black room. Even with the very high on/off CR capability of a CRT, in a pitch-black room you can immediately see that it is turned on.

No, it does not. As Glen rightly points out a CRT properly setup never goes *totally* black.

The brightside HDR with modulated LED backlight goes completely black. As in no light output whatsoever, at all


Sure, on a totally blank input. Add any light whatsoever to the scene and the crt monitor would destroy it with black levels. Bright scenes, low light scenes. Same with plasma vs led lcd, only a blank input lcd can go blacker.

Sure, on a totally blank input. Add any light whatsoever to the scene and the crt monitor would destroy it with black levels. Bright scenes, low light scenes. Same with plasma vs led lcd, only a blank input lcd can go blacker.

Again, no. It is an HDR display, it hits the highest ANSI CR I've seen claimed anywhere, and exceeds the capabilities of the human eye. Plasmas and regular LCDs do not go blacker than a CRT on full frame black, so you're wrong there too, CRTs excel at that, but CRT is not the best in the world at this.

In any case, I'm wasting my time talking to you, since you're not that familiar with displays, and you are completely unfamiliar with calibrated displays. Why you choose to participate in numerous threads that concern display calibration and alignment when you've never even seen a calibrated display, I do not know.

Again, no. It is an HDR display, it hits the highest ANSI CR I've seen claimed anywhere, and exceeds the capabilities of the human eye. Plasmas and regular LCDs do not go blacker than a CRT on full frame black, so you're wrong there too, CRTs excel at that, but CRT is not the best in the world at this.

Crt monitor is the best in the world at black levels. Only a led lcd that shuts off on a all black screen can beat it in that parameter. Plasma won't go blacker than a crt but a led lcd might on a all black screen, like brightside you mentioned.

In any case, I'm wasting my time talking to you, since you're not that familiar with displays, and you are completely unfamiliar with calibrated displays. Why you choose to participate in numerous threads that concern display calibration and alignment when you've never even seen a calibrated display, I do not know.


Of'course not. Go watch your black crush g70 :)

Crt monitor is the best in the world at black levels. Only a led lcd that shuts off on a all black screen can beat it in that parameter. Plasma won't go blacker than a crt but a led lcd might on a all black screen, like brightside you mentioned.

Of'course not. Go watch your black crush g70 :)

I don't have a G70. Never have.

I don't have a G70. Never have.

Hmm, i thought i read that's what you said you owned and it had black crush from poor ansi.

Hmm, i thought i read that's what you said you owned and it had black crush from poor ansi.

Q: What's more pathetic than resorting to ad-hominem attacks?

A: Attacking people for the wrong things.

Hmm, i thought i read that's what you said you owned and it had black crush from poor ansi.

No, I've owned and used a G808, an 8500AC and a 9500LC Ultra. A g70 would have similar ANSI performance to the 9500LC, the g70 also being liquid coupled (however 8" vs the 9500's 9"). While not as strong in ANSI as many digitals, it is a good bit better than an air-coupled CRT such as the first two.

The ANSI weaknesses of CRTs are more pronounced partly because you have such enormous on/off CR capabilities. Direct view CRTs also have relatively poor ANSI CR performance.

Thanks for the clarification. My point is movies that *are* suppose to look realistic and there will be redish-pink tones to pick. Take for instance King Kong, there is artistic intent to make scenes look old, but skin tones throughout look great. Now, everytime you see pink panther skin tones do you automaticaly assume that was the intent? I sure don't. I'll chalk it up to poor calibration, or poor equipment. I don't think you can make a JVC look as good as a Sony, but i could be wrong.

Why do you assume that I see "pink panther skin tones" when watching King Kong?

Why do you assume that I see "pink panther skin tones" when watching King Kong?It totally amazes me, how anyone, who so obviously, has never seen a properly calibrated display, can be so far off in his thoughts and so unable to comprehend the results of calibrations which have been clearly explained. In simple terms, Zues is publicly arguing that 2 + 2 does not equal 4, and no one can prove it to him, facts are meaningless.

All his coloration issues towards "realistic" are the specific issues a proper calibration addresses and corrects. We tell this person, we correct the color balance an skin tones that are intended to look natural actually look natural as a result of calibration.

Taking all this into account, I wonder how bizarre his "self adjusted" realistic pictures look .......... possibly something one might have seen in the '60s, while on LSD?

A bit of an epiphany here, I think it has been mentioned before, however, I realized that all of these bizarre coloration issues Zues claims is simply a result of his never seeing, having or had, a properly calibrated display, then, confesses to his adjusting, by eye, for a more natural "realistic" picture. Then, he comes here to describe the errors in many different movies ... :eek: ... his constant adjustments obviously have the picture so far off resulting in every movie he watches, looks terrible, over saturated, wrong tint, etc. resulting in more tweaking needed...... There is a good chance he has never seen a movie the way any director intended.

He still refuses to describe the "calibrated" display he saw and more than that, has not told us what display he is using to watch "realistic" scenes ...... LCD???

This has been the norm anytime Zues has gotten involved in any calibration discussion. He says 2+2=5 because that's what he believes. That's where he differs from a calibrator - what he does relies only on belief and personal tastes.

He's not going to change, nor does he have a desire to learn - he's just here to stir the pot and act like a buffoon.

his constant adjustments obviously have the picture so far off resulting in every movie he watches, looks terrible, over saturated, wrong tint, etc. resulting in more tweaking needed...... There is a good chance he has never seen a movie the way any director intended.



You are a funny dude glen...Explain this, from my findings with digital displays, because of dynamic range issues, many movies need a brightness adjustment for the ideal setting, either up or down, otherwise you will not be at the ideal setting. Do you agree? Or once you calibrate you never touch the settings, never? Do you think your 'magic' calibration will be ideal for ALL content?

You are a funny dude glen...Explain this, from my findings with digital displays, because of dynamic range issues, many movies need a brightness adjustment for the ideal setting, either up or down, otherwise you will not be at the ideal setting. Do you agree? Or once you calibrate you never touch the settings, never? Do you think your 'magic' calibration will be ideal for ALL content?"funny dude" .... that's a lable for one who just discloses the facts???

Let me say this, watching a TV program last night, I thought the gamma looked a bit high and the blacks seemed crushed. Adjusted the brightness level, well, it turns out it was mastered that way, no aparent attempt to make it look natural. There was absolutely no additional detail in the blacks, crushed at the source (directors intent ??).

If you don't like the dynamic range on your digital display, get one with better dynamic range. BTW, how does dynamic range performance equate to your obsession with over saturation and red flesh-tones?

I thought the gamma looked a bit high and the blacks seemed crushed. Adjusted the brightness level, well, it turns out it was mastered that way, no aparent attempt to make it look natural. There was absolutely no additional detail in the blacks, crushed at the source (directors intent ??).


Hmm, so now *you* are constantly adjusting your pic? Just last night? How many other nights do you adjust? Just last night?

If you don't like the dynamic range on your digital display, get one with better dynamic range. BTW, how does dynamic range performance equate to your obsession with over saturation and red flesh-tones?

It don't. As i asked before, do you think your settings will be ideal for all content?

He's not going to change, nor does he have a desire to learn - he's just here to... act like a buffoon.

And rather successfully I might add.

Art

Hmm, so now *you* are constantly adjusting your pic? Just last night? How many other nights do you adjust? Just last night?

It don't. As i asked before, do you think your settings will be ideal for all content?I will make adjustments from time to time, to verify settings, to learn more, etc. I just replaced the bulb in the projector, so I occasionally verify settings, check for drift and learn about what is being broadcast.

Generally everything works pretty well without the need for adjustments. Occasionally, the Networks can miscalibrate their broadcast signal and adjustment may be needed for that one program. A few weeks ago, the Letterman show was broadcast on the dark side, not their normal level. In general, properly calibrate then watch and watch for hours.........

And rather successfully I might add.

Art


Sorry if i hit a nerve.

Generally everything works pretty well without the need for adjustments.


Not from my findings. As i said before, only crt i could set and throw everything at it and it would play pretty much ideal. And actually dynamic range does affect color, and brightness levels also. Digital is very finiky, and there is little room for error.

Sorry

No, you're really not.

It's unfortunate that Mr. Sonneborn as a veteran to AVS forum continues to rip on members in violation of forum rules. In fact this thread alone has at least a dozen posts by him that serve no purpose but to tear people down.

And actually dynamic range does affect color, and brightness levels also. Digital is very finiky, and there is little room for error.This should be good!

Zeus, Please explain your comment.
How does dynamic range affect "brightness"

Secondly, how does "dynamic range" affect "color" does the x/y coordinate change or does the chroma level in reference to white level change or is it something else? Calibration (with CMS for primaries and secondaries) can correct x/y and chroma levels.

It's unfortunate that Mr. Sonneborn as a veteran to AVS forum continues to rip on members in violation of forum rules. In fact this thread alone has at least a dozen posts by him that serve no purpose but to tear people down.

No need to be so formal. I was wondering when you were going to return to your own thread. A thread that has shown, by the way, an overwhelming majority of posts and posters who feel that your original post to be simply false.

Art

How does dynamic range affect "brightness"

Take a crt monitor for example, turn the brightness all the way up. Notice how many clicks of brightness it takes to go from deep blacks to gray. Alot of clicks. Do the same on a digital if it can display a deep black, sometimes only a couple clicks can result in gray. Same with color, it will take more clicks on the crt to look horrible compared to digital. What this all means is content that was mastered on crt reference displays, are they mastered on crt displays? Won't always be ideally displayed by a digital device. Hence why many people make a quick adjustment in brightness-color, in the beggining of a movie. Atleast i do when i notice something is not right.

No, you're really not.


The sad fact is isf calibration was worth the dough when crt was still kickin. Convergence, focus adjustments, etc. Those where things your average joe could not perform. Well i'm sure some did. But in this age of digital with perfect geometry, focus, manufacturers abilty to put out very capable 'calibrated' 'standards' of pq with simple user adjustments, makes the whole concept just not worthwhile for many. A joe kane cd, if you need that, and tuning by eye for preference by a savy user can result in a fabulaous picture. I'm sorry you don't agree. All this calibrating to 'standards' only obtainable by a calibrator with tools so we can see what the director intended really makes me want to vomit. "Sorry" you don't agree.

Hey, my livelihood is not at stake. The sad fact is isf calibration was worth the dough when crt was still kickin. Convergence, focus adjustments, etc. Those where things your average joe could not perform. Well i'm sure some did. But in this age of digital with perfect geometry, focus, manufacturers abilty to put out very capable 'calibrated' 'standards' of pq with simple user adjustments, makes the whole concept just not worthwhile for many. A joe kane cd, if you need that, and tuning by eye for preference by a savy user can result in a fabulous picture. I'm sorry you don't agree. All this calibrating to 'standards' only obtainable by a calibrator with tools so we can see what the director intended really makes me want to vomit. "Sorry" you don't agree.

I'm not a professional calibrator and my RS1 had greyscale dE's of less than 3 from 10-100IRE as well as for all primaries and secondaries. For an amateur who's never charged a penny for a calibration, I'd say that's not too bad. The standards are easily found and attainable by anyone willing to look and learn. You're willing to do neither, so again I ask you why are you here? Aside from bashing a process which you admittedly know nothing about, I can't see a reason.

Your pride in your ignorance and your persistent buffoonery in an arena in which you clearly have nothing positive nor productive to add makes me want to vomit.

You're willing to do neither .


Why would i be willing? My display has been 'measured' to be perfectly accurate right out of the box. And i would disagree with that because i have made noticeable improvements. Every display i have owned i have been able to get a very satisfying picture. Why on earth would i trust a calibration tool, that's probably inaccurate or incapeable of detecting low ire errors, or just pay someone to do it to tell me it's accurate and this is what i should watch? Like i have said, content varies on digital so if you just leave the settings and never touch it you WILL be inaccurate. Just in the form of simple brightness. Besides, if you have 10 different isf calibrators adjust your pic, 10 out of 10 times the settings will be all different. Guaranteed.

Guaranteed.

Now you're making guarantees about a process which you know nothing about nor understand.

So I ask you once again - you've made it clear you don't understand the basics of calibration or what it offers, and you don't want to learn about it, but you want to come here and tell everyone it's a bunch of horse$hit. So what exactly are you doing here? Aside from doing your best to sound like a repetitive, blathering idiot.

So you need to understand binary to know what a good picture looks like?

Send in your 'highly calibrated to standards' rs1 to cnet and i bet this is what the result would be.

Red-Poor
Green-Poor
Blue-Poor

.... it will take more clicks on the crt to look horrible compared to digital......ROTFLMAO ...... I knew it would be good!

So you need to understand binary to know what a good picture looks like?

Send in your 'highly calibrated to standards' rs1 to cnet and i bet this is what the result would be.

Red-Poor
Green-Poor
Blue-Poor

Wow Zues, you posed such a well laid-out and in-depth argument obviously backed by loads of calibration knowledge and experience. Thanks for pushing out yet another fine turd from the vapid bowels of your ignorant mind.

Wow Zues, you posed such a well laid-out and in-depth argument obviously backed by loads of calibration knowledge and experience.


Thank you. I don't expect newbies like you to know what a good picture looks like. It's nice to know you study binary and the calibration forums along with mohawk tweaking, but you are still a noob, and will probably never know what a accurate pic looks like. Certainly not with the rs1 with poor color across the board :( Keep studying and maybe one day you will realize that eye one pro or whatever newbie tool you used probably won't help your poor picture. Or any other projector you might inflict your cheap tools on. I know it can be hard. But it's not rocket science or binary. Mohawk tweaking is another story.

Zues;

Might I respectfully suggest that it's time to put up or shut up. (screenshots, that is) Try TDK: Joker on street from behind, masked guys disable security or bus pulling out of the bank up the street trailing a cloud of dust. If you don't want to post shots on this thread, put them on the screenshot thread and let us know when you have done so.

BTW, The shots mentioned in my previous post are all from the IMAX prologue on the Blu-Ray, so EE shouldn't be an issue.

Thank you. I don't expect newbies like you to know what a good picture looks like. It's nice to know you study binary and the calibration forums along with mohawk tweaking, but you are still a noob, and will probably never know what a accurate pic looks like. Certainly not with the rs1 with poor color across the board :( Keep studying and maybe one day you will realize that eye one pro or whatever newbie tool you used probably won't help your poor picture. Or any other projector you might inflict your cheap tools on. I know it can be hard. But it's not rocket science or binary. Mohawk tweaking is another story. I can vouch for Hog knowing what it looks like because I have provided for him. I can't vouch for your knowledge which by all indications is limited and based on subjectivity. Pick on whomever you wish, but this thread is currently populated by several very experienced display calibration professionals who would all agree about your lack of credibility on this subject. As a motion picture and television industry professional, I would agree with them on this.

There was a time at this forum when you could count on the members to conduct themselves in a courteous manner, even during vigorous debate. It was a gentleman's forum. Members just didn't bloviate. If they did, their posts quickly disappeared. Ahh, the good old days.

Thank you. I don't expect newbies like you to know what a good picture looks like. It's nice to know you study binary and the calibration forums along with mohawk tweaking, but you are still a noob, and will probably never know what a accurate pic looks like. Certainly not with the rs1 with poor color across the board :( Keep studying and maybe one day you will realize that eye one pro or whatever newbie tool you used probably won't help your poor picture. Or any other projector you might inflict your cheap tools on. I know it can be hard. But it's not rocket science or binary. Mohawk tweaking is another story.


I use an LT to calibrate workstations that I then use to create imagery for major motion pictures.

I'm very familiar with what a calibrated display looks like.

Your arguments are non-existent.

time to quote an old but appropriate phrase:

Challenge the [info in the] post...never the poster

thanks

Thank you. I don't expect newbies like you to know what a good picture looks like. It's nice to know you study binary and the calibration forums along with mohawk tweaking, but you are still a noob, and will probably never know what a accurate pic looks like. Certainly not with the rs1 with poor color across the board :( Keep studying and maybe one day you will realize that eye one pro or whatever newbie tool you used probably won't help your poor picture. Or any other projector you might inflict your cheap tools on. I know it can be hard. But it's not rocket science or binary. Mohawk tweaking is another story.

Uh oh, I think you pushed too hard on that turd. Obviously I've gotten under your skin - and where's Tryg to benevolently point out your horrific string of senseless ad hominem attacks? He seemed so concerned about preventing that in his thread...:rolleyes:

The color and greyscale on my RS1, as I stated, were spot on thanks to my Radiance. If you'd actually read anything I said here, you'd know that - but then again anyone could post the same rambling jibberish that you parrot without ever reading any posts here.

And by the way, you still haven't answered my question. We've established that 1) you know nothing about calibration, nor do you have a desire to learn, 2) you think calibration is a bunch of crap, yet 3) you're posting in a thread about calibration. So why are you here?

The color and greyscale on my RS1, as I stated, were spot on thanks to my Radiance


So you can put a radiance on a projector that measures poor color across the board and can't be corrected and turn them results into good 'spot on' with a radiance? So you can use a radiance on any projector and achieve spot on color accuracy?

Personal attacks and name calling don't accomplish much.

Many of us here offer information to assist those who are trying to learn, as well as learning ourselves.

Many have askes Zues to provide backup for his claims and there have been none...... It has clearly been established that he knows little or nothing about the actual calibration process. The best that comes to mind is the quote from Thomas Edison "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work". We all can see Zues is on the way to finding 10,000 ways to incorrectly adjust his TV, all the while thinking he is calibrating it.....

There has been some really good information provided by some very knowledgeable people/professionals in here, take the time to learn....

So you can put a radiance on a projector that measures poor color across the board and can't be corrected and turn them results into good 'spot on' with a radiance? So you can use a radiance on any projector and achieve spot on color accuracy?Too loose of a claim. If the primaries are greater than the standard, i.e. REC 709, you can bring them in. Yes, I have done a RS1 with a Radiance and the grayscale, gamma and colors are great.

Too loose of a claim. If the primaries are greater than the standard, i.e. REC 709, you can bring them in. Yes, I have done a RS1 with a Radiance and the grayscale, gamma and colors are great.


So if one where to obtain your services with a rs1, but did not have a radiance, how would you 'bring them in' ?

So you can put a radiance on a projector that measures poor color across the board and can't be corrected and turn them results into good 'spot on' with a radiance?

The RS1 gamut is oversaturated and can be corrected - just not with the on-board controls. That's exactly what the CMS on the Radiance is for...it's not rocket science. But I do see how it would appear that way to someone like you who doesn't understand even the basics of how this is achieved.

So you can use a radiance on any projector and achieve spot on color accuracy?

You were doing so well...then you throw this gross generalization out there. I'd say you just went back to square one, but we all know you never left it, nor will you.

So if one where to obtain your services with a rs1, but did not have a radiance, how would you 'bring them in' ?

It can't be corrected without an outboard CMS. This was one of the major criticisms of the RS1 - its gamut is oversaturated with no on-board capability to correct it properly. Hence the CMS on the RS20.

It can't be corrected without an outboard CMS


So then neither can the vast MAJORITY of displays and projectors. What kind of BS do these calibrators tell their clients when their display is INCAPEABLE of good color accuracy. I doubt any of them turn down the job, OR tell them they STILL have POOR color accuracy after they paid them. :(

So then neither can the vast MAJORITY of displays and projectors. What kind of BS do these calibrators tell their clients when their display is INCAPEABLE of good color accuracy. I doubt any of them turn down the job, OR tell them they STILL have POOR color accuracy after they paid them. :(

There are a lot of displays and projectors that can be dialed in to the reference standards or very close to them. And most professional calibrators will tell you up front what they can or can't do with a display before you hire them. The ones that don't know what they are doing or just think they do are generally the ones you have to worry about when it comes to calibration and taking your money.

So then neither can the vast MAJORITY of displays and projectors. What kind of BS do these calibrators tell their clients when their display is INCAPEABLE of good color accuracy. I doubt any of them turn down the job, OR tell them they STILL have POOR color accuracy after they paid them. :(There is a big difference between a good and bad grayscale. Since the grayscale sets the tone for every color displayed, it is more important in the overall scheme of things than a proper CMS. I used my RS1 for quite a while before the Radiance was available, then while Beta testing the Radiance, there was no CMS. Having a flat grayscale and corrected gamma made for very natural colors. Don't get confused over the different adjustments available.

There are a lot of displays and projectors that can be dialed in to the reference standards or very close to them. And most professional calibrators will tell you up front what they can or can't do with a display before you hire them.

Exactly ! Ken Whitcomb is well known foir doing just that.

Art

So then neither can the vast MAJORITY of displays and projectors. What kind of BS do these calibrators tell their clients when their display is INCAPEABLE of good color accuracy. I doubt any of them turn down the job, OR tell them they STILL have POOR color accuracy after they paid them. :(

Wow...so now you're resorting to libel as a last, pathetic act of desparation?

I'd ask you to offer up specific instances which would back your assertions, but I know for a fact you don't have any.

Throw on top of that you've already admitted you don't even know HOW to calibrate a display, yet somehow you know that a "vast majority" can't be calibrated? Do you even read what you write before you post it, or do you simply convulse upon your keyboard until you happen upon the post button?

Absolutely pathetic.

So then neither can the vast MAJORITY of displays and projectors. What kind of BS do these calibrators tell their clients when their display is INCAPEABLE of good color accuracy. I doubt any of them turn down the job, OR tell them they STILL have POOR color accuracy after they paid them. :(

As I have said repeatedly in this thread, most professionals are very clear what can and cannot be done with a given display and DO educate their clients on the matter before, during, and after the calibration. Many DO turn down jobs on certain sets that they know are incapable of meeting their standards. It varies, of course with the individual calibrator. What you fail to understand is that, among the best professional in the field, there is no BS and no hype, there is no milseading or kidding, there is no subterfuge with regard to our clients. There are less reputable calibrators but it is easy to tell the difference. Simply engage them in discussion about the set and the service you desire and you will know right away. If they are not very open on the matter, none of the real pros here would suggest using them.

You simply obviously have no experience in the matter nor have you been paying attention to the people here who do calibrations for a living to very high standards of both performance and professionalism. Your comments are simply incorrect with respect to those operating in a professional manner, which includes many of the largest contributors here at AVS. They, we, have offerred many hours of our time for free to educate the masses regarding how to get the most out of their display systems. The constant mis-information from people like you that we have to spend time correcting is just a time wasting distraction. The time could be better spent in discussions that go somewhere rather than covering the same ground trying to dispell the BS that YOU are producing.

The bottom line is that you use your personal preference to attack people who try to produce better images for their clients using standards and test equipment, and who have extensive experience calibrating displays. Your preferences are perfectly valid and acceptable to YOU, but it is unfair for you to disparage those who opt to have their displays calibrated to a standard and those that attempt to help them do so.

Enough!

So then neither can the vast MAJORITY of displays and projectors. What kind of BS do these calibrators tell their clients when their display is INCAPEABLE of good color accuracy. I doubt any of them turn down the job, OR tell them they STILL have POOR color accuracy after they paid them. :(After about half an hour working on my projector and having no luck at all dialing in the grayscale Ken Whitcomb said... "Please tell me this isn't an expensive projector so I wouldn't feel so bad"... :) Luckily an hour or so later after undoing everything I had adjusted he got it dialed in.

What you fail to understand is that, among the best professional in the field, there is no BS and no hype, there is no milseading or kidding, there is no subterfuge with regard to our clients. There are less reputable calibrators but it is easy to tell the difference.

One could argue that the reputable calibrators are reputable, _because_ they don't give people BS.

Why would i be willing? My display has been 'measured' to be perfectly accurate right out of the box. And i would disagree with that because i have made noticeable improvements.

And who and what device "measured" YOUR display to be perfectly accurate right out the box?

I hope all of you have had you eyes calibrated. How do we know that we are all seeing the same things? I ve started a new company and will calibrate people eyes now. I need to make sure you are seeing accurately.

I hope all of you have had you eyes calibrated. How do we know that we are all seeing the same things? I ve started a new company and will calibrate people eyes now. I need to make sure you are seeing accurately.

Google "optometrist".

I hope all of you have had you eyes calibrated. How do we know that we are all seeing the same things? I ve started a new company and will calibrate people eyes now. I need to make sure you are seeing accurately.
Yes, I heard there was even some money in the stimulus plan for research and start-up of that :D